It was the L-lens which did it Phil! And come on, a pro photographer is a pro photographer. That the standard of pixels is higher than before, now, doesnt mean that 4 megapixels is for non-pros like you not enough!

When it comes to comparing the two cameras, one has to be very careful in assessing sensor performance. Since there is such a huge difference in sensor resolution, looking at images at 100% view (pixel level) will obviously give advantage to the Canon 5D Mark III, simply because the latter has bigger pixels and hence its per pixel noise characteristics are going to be better. The proper comparison method, however, involves a down-sampling process, in which a higher-resolution image is resized to a smaller resolution. So in this case, the only proper way to compare the two cameras, is to take a 36.3 MP image from the Nikon D800 and decrease it to Canon 5D Mark III’s 22.3 MP resolution. This can be easily done in post-processing software like Photoshop and Lightroom and the comparison of the two, along with my personal analysis are presented in my Nikon D800 Review. In short, once down-sampled, the Nikon D800 yields exceptionally good images at high ISO levels and actually looks slightly better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 3200 and above. Lastly, the dynamic range of the Nikon D800 is phenomenal. According to DxOMark, the Nikon D800 has better dynamic range than all medium format cameras they have tested so far. The same cannot be said about the Canon 5D Mark III – its dynamic range is certainly inferior (see the “Dynamic Range” section of the review for more details). Let’s take a look at other differences in camera specifications – a full comparison is provided in my Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 article that I posted earlier.

How ever the best cam for me in terms of function ergonomics will be the 5d mk3.

dont bother advising me about those as they are from yor point of view.

Nobody's advised differently about ergonomics - again you're whining about things nobody has debated with you on. The only time I've questioned somebody on ergonomics was they commented one one camera being impossible to use and hold based on nothing more than a photo of the camera and not through holding it himself. What we've debated with you is your view that the 5D III is comprehensively and exhaustively superior, on which you have contradicted yourself numerous times.

At times I do feel you can have an argument in an otherwise empty room.

ZEMBANU wrote:

If yu wont give me pics that's fine, dont tell me any BS about its bad manners to ask for raw pics and its the equivalant if negatives. THEY ARE NOT NEGATIVES THEY ARE DATA!

It's not BS, it's called etiquette and I make no apologies for showing no inclination to ask my friends if they would mind me sharing their RAW files, especially with the less than affable manner in which you've presented yourself. I don't recall asking whether you consider them equivalent of negatives or not. Data or not, you are not entitled to be given them - throw your toys out of the pram as much as you like - grow a pair and get over it. I consider them the digital equivalent of negatives (I don't think I'm alone in this) in the sense that you can create usable images from them while RAW files in themselves are not directly usable, just like film negatives.

ZEMBANU, can I ask a personal question? (seeing as you don't seem to have good manners & etiquette, it should be ok) do you have a disability/mental health problems/Aspergers syndrome? & do you speak to your parents this way?

rorschach you are an arrogant foool. I am damned well entitle to what I want if the person who it belongs to is willing to give it to me.

If you dont want to give me your.I AM ENTITLED to the UNIVERSE and all of space and time and someday eternity and infinity and all forms of matter and energy wikk be mine.

Rorschach you with your arrogance make me EXTREMELY FURIOUS IN ADITION TO THE NRS AND COLY OF MY COUNTRY.

YOU ARE JUST MATTER AND ENERGY AND I AM A GOD!

Yes, I'm an arrogant fool because I'm not afraid of speaking my mind or confronting people on matters where I disagree with them.

Some day I'd like to wake up between Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, Christina Hendricks and Eva Green but I'm not a fantasist, nor am I under the influence of drugs. I don't think I was dropped on my head when I was younger either.

ZEMBANU wrote:

rorschach I tell yu what I want whether I ask for it or not.

I can recommend a lot of cheeses to go with that whine of yours. You previously said that it's up to us if we'll share our RAW files but you're crying about us not doing so like a spoilt child. Which exhibit is this for showing your many contradictions?

ZEMBANU wrote:

DATA IS DATA AND NOT THE EQUIVALANT OF DAMNED NEGATIVE FILM!

I told you already that your views on this matter are of no consequence. Using caps lock with not change my views on RAW files; deal with it.

Actually, speaking as professional photographer - Yes, yes it is. RAWs are the digital negatives. I have a clause in all my contracts that clearly states I retain full ownership of RAW files because they are the basis from which all processed (developed) files are derived. Most photographers (me included) prefer to retain full control over the quality and character of the presentation of our work. The developing process is what dictates the final quality of a photo. There is a particular member here who shoots fairly well, but whose processing (developing) completely lets their skill down. While you can't polish a turd (yea yea, mythbusters), you can definitely overcook a masterpiece (which I've definitely been guilty of).

I'm obviously glossing over the whole creativity/composition aspect as well, but merely speaking from a technical aspect, the above is why RAWs are negatives, and why most photographers aren't willing to distribute RAWs. You basically "own" their work if you have their RAW.